[cynix]

> and is a one-time payment

Well technically it's like a "subscription with indeterminate renewal cycle". Every few years they release a new major version and sometimes you have to pay to upgrade.

Of course you can choose to not upgrade... but then you don't get the new features, and it's unclear if the old version will support all newer macOS releases.

[jen729w]

Technically that's what we call "buying software".

[randmeerkat]

> Technically that's what we call "buying software".

What a novel idea. You mean once upon a time you didn’t have to pay a monthly racket for a piece of software you wanted..?

[jen729w]

That's right. Rather than paying your $10/month 'racket', you simply paid $300 one time.

Then every 3 years or so you spent $300 again to get the updated version. It was a much better system!

/s

[randmeerkat]

> Then every 3 years or so you spent $300 again to get the updated version. It was a much better system!

By your math it was. 10x12x3=360 > 300. Subscriptions cost more than buying the actual software. Why do you think most companies switched to a subscription model?

[jedberg]

It was a better system, because if I didn't need the new features, I could keep using the version of Microsoft Word that I bought 15 years prior. That's why they stopped selling it that way.

[filchermcurr]

Even if the price is the same, "old" distribution models have benefits. If you're satisfied with your current version and it still works, no need to continue paying. If you maintain older systems, your software still works without continuing to pay in perpetuity.

I much prefer buying software licenses outright than renting them forever.

[cgriswald]

Apples and ladybugs are both red but (I imagine) they taste quite differently. Which one you should use probably depends on whether you’re baking a pie or dealing with pests in your garden.

Declaring them equal based on a single metric like color would be as silly as suggesting subscriptions and purchases are the same because their costs over an arbitrary period of time are roughly similar.

[amyames]

it’s owning versus rent-seeking and this is a ridiculous hair to split

my owned software doesn’t abruptly stop working when I don’t pay my “rent”

[Aurornis]

You’re not wrong, with a lot of Mac apps (this one included) you need the latest version to use it with the latest macOS release.

When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.

The situation seems worse on Mac where software has much shorter lifespans without new releases. On Windows I’m still using some engineering software I bought over a decade ago and it’s like nothing ever changed.

[haswell]

There have been roughly 18 major macOS releases since Little Snitch was released.

In that time, there have been 6 major versions of Little Snitch.

macOS has undergone pretty major architectural changes during that time, necessitating mandatory upgrades under some circumstances, but an OS update does not always force a LS upgrade.

> When there’s a new mandatory paid upgrade every couple years then it’s not far from a subscription service.

I disagree and don’t think people should mentally model subscriptions this way.

Subscriptions almost universally cost more on average than standalone purchases did, and there are still situations where it’s possible to remain on old versions in perpetuity, e.g. and old Mac that is kept around for a specific purpose but no longer receives major OS updates.

I think both models fall under a larger overarching umbrella of “software maintenance costs”, but those costs have always existed and standalone purchases vs. subscriptions are two fairly different ways of covering those costs.

Agree that this all feels worse on macOS due to the regular updates, but unlike Windows, I actually feel better over time about privacy/security and this naturally forces more app updates across the board. Microsoft’s commitment to backward compatibility is both convenient and increasingly a liability.